Targeted Killing Persuasive Essay

Introduction
Every year the United States kills hundreds of individuals outside of the judicial system without any regard to their citizenship or nationality through drone (unmanned aerial vehicle) strikes. The United States claims that these are “targeted killings” and that they ensure the well-being of our nation. Today, I will persuade you that these claims are generally false and often result in a poorer state of security by improperly using the term targeted killing, damaging the international image of the United States, and creating major legality issues behind the killings.

Defining Targeted Killing
It is important to understand how targeted killing is defined and used in the United States before it is applied to drone strikes. Individuals
The accuracy of identifying targets is greatly diminished increasing the likelihood of civilian casualties. Both of the arguments for targeted killing can be diminished with quantitative evidence implying that Al Qaeda members are increasing due to the inaccuracy of drone strikes.

Conclusion
The United States and its citizens should not support the government’s current campaign of targeted killing. Evidence suggests that the civilian casualty rate of the drone program is increasing the disapproval rate of the United States abroad and may ultimately be leading to an increase of terrorists in foreign countries.
Every citizen of the United States has the right to due process, the current targeted killing program deprives a citizen of this constitutional right. The targeted killing program conducted by the government of the United States is destroying foreign relations, creating terrorists, depriving citizens of basic rights, and killing innocent civilians. These convincing reasons are why the current system endangers the well-being of our nation and why we should advocate against it. Once we begin targeting individuals for execution, far from any warzone, we turn the whole world into a